Scientific explanation for Ghosts?

WoodDoug

I don't really believe in the ghosts, probably because I've never experienced anything supernatural. However, my girlfriend is an absolute believer, claiming she saw a ghost when she was 15. Any attempts to try and reason with her gets her angry, and then we get in an argument. She's level headed, extremely bright, and a college graduate. But when it comes to ghosts... :rolleyes:

So what do you guys think of this?

There may be an explanation for things like ghosts and hauntings. And it's not your mind simply playing tricks on you.

Are you hearing weird sounds, briefly seeing ghostly images, feel a presence in the room with you, or an inexplicable and sudden sense of overwhelming fear?

It just might be infrasound.

http://zidbits.com/2010/11/25/a-scientific-explanation-for-ghosts/

Can anyone with a science background confirm? Is there any truth to infrasound being the reason?

cianl1

There may be some truth to this after all...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrasound#The_Ghost_in_the_Machine

Seems that it resonates closely to the eye's resonant frequency and that's what makes us see things that aren't there.

Encoder1970

It could an explanation for some phenomena but there are plenty other sighting etc that cannot be explained this way.
It doesn't mean it's ghosts, it just means we cannot explain them yet.

gerryk

My explanation for most hallucinations is this...

1. our brain is a highly efficient pattern matching device
2. when functioning normally, the 'false positive' rate is very low
3. when functioning suboptimally (tired, under influence of chemicals, stressed, emotional) this false positive rate raises, allowing random neural background noise to slip through the filter and be recognised as something... a voice, a human shape etc.

Capt'n Midnight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2

Test pilot Roland Beamont finally made the first flight from the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment (A&AEE) at Boscombe Down, Wiltshire, on 27 September 1964.[64] Initial flight tests were all performed with the undercarriage down and engine power strictly controlled—with limits of 250 kt and 10,000 ft on the first (15-minute) flight. Shortly after takeoff on XR219's second flight, vibration from a fuel pump at the resonant frequency of the human eyeball caused the pilot to throttle back one engine to avoid loss of vision.

FarmerGreen

Why don't I believe that is remotely possible?

Deepwell

I’m not sure how infrasound would conjure the images that are often associated with ghostly sightings other than it triggers a subliminal event and then our imagination joins the dots based on hearsay.

I once worked for an engineering director who, for me provided the most plausible, scientifically based (almost) explanation for ghosts. In summary (and as I recall it) it was as follows:

Most haunting’s are associated with traumatic events, often surrounding the loss of a life and typically occur in old buildings (e.g. castles, etc.) which used a high percentage of natural stone in their construction. Such stone often has significant levels of iron and quartz in their composition.

During the human trauma the brain generates high levels of electromagnetic energy which can affect the magnetisation of the iron in the surrounding stone, which in effect becomes a recording medium much like a how cassette tape or hard disk platter works.

Now for playback you need someone who is extra sensitive to these magnetic fields (AKA a “medium”) and a particular set of conditions that facilitate the pickup of the magnetised patterns – possibly through the quartz generating infrasounds?

I can’t vouch for the scientific basis for this, but for me its more plausible and a lot more comforting than the thought of a ‘spirit with unfinished business’.

Capt'n Midnight

Deepwell wrote: »

Such stone often has significant levels of iron and quartz in their composition.

During the human trauma the brain generates high levels of electromagnetic energy which can affect the magnetisation of the iron in the surrounding stone, which in effect becomes a recording medium much like a how cassette tape or hard disk platter works.

Now for playback you need someone who is extra sensitive to these magnetic fields (AKA a “medium”) and a particular set of conditions that facilitate the pickup of the magnetised patterns – possibly through the quartz generating infrasounds?

I can’t vouch for the scientific basis for this, but for me its more plausible and a lot more comforting than the thought of a ‘spirit with unfinished business’.

Human brain doesn't generate large amounts of energy , you need very sensitive sensors to pick it up

To magnetise something you need to raise the magnetic field above a certain level, to do this at any sort of distance would probably need such a strong magnetic field that you'd feel drawn to Ferrous metals near by.

Little Acorn

Please don't ask me to explain these in great scientific detail, because I won't be able to, but I have heard a few other theories aswell.
One is that ghosts are people trapped in some sort of time bubble that they can't leave, and so are stuck in the same time period repeating themselves like groundhog day.
Another is something to do with parallel universes, and for some reason some people are able to get a glance of the people[now ghosts] in them, yet the ghost is unaware that they can be seen.
Another is that some of us change after death and that ghosts are an energy form that leave the body after death and remain active.

Just so you know where I stand, I do believe in ghosts. I don't know the reasons of why they are there, but I do believe they exist.
I just don't think that millions of people all over the world are lying, including a small few people I know who are the biggest skeptics you could meet but have had what would be described as ghostly experiences.
I have never seen a ghost, but in my college house there was a few very freaky incidents regarding a large heavy item of furniture moving by itself.
Would this infrasound thing explain items moving by themselves?
I'm also interested in stories where people claim to have sightings/receive a message from the ghost of a loved one. Or see a vision of a loved one who is many miles away, and then discover that the person had just died at the the same time that they saw them.
The infrasound thing could explain the quick glimpses of shadowy figures, or hearing noises/voices, but I don't know if it could explained the very detailed ghostly experiences that some people have??

Zombrex

WoodDoug wrote: »

claiming she saw a ghost when she was 15.

I wouldn't try and convince her she didn't see a ghost, I would instead try and just get to think why does she think it was a "ghost" in the first place, in stead of simply an unexplained phenomena.

This is the problem with a lot of supernatural explanations, people accept the burden of demonstrating it wasn't supernatural claim X, Y, Z rather than the person making the claim having the burden of demonstrating it was.

partyndbs

i dont really believe in ghosts much but i want 2 no what the **** called me and my sister from our mum and dads room when we were younger...i wouldnt mind if it was just me who remembers it but so does my sister...like omg that fear i experienced when i heard that voice will stick with me for ever.....calling out our names :eek: omg

maccored

infrasound is well documented, as is the effects of high emf and even wifi radiation.

it doesnt though explain all facets of apparent paranormal occurrences.

maccored

Wicknight wrote: »

rather than the person making the claim having the burden of demonstrating it was.

personally, i dont believe anyone should have to prove anything. you either believe them or you dont, full stop. people who believe they have experienced a ghost usually arent that interested in convincing someone who never has. its generally the other way around - the person who never had such an experience usually claims it cant happen (as it never happened to them) and therefore demand the other 'proves' their experience. pretty stupid and shortsighted if you ask me.

maccored

Deepwell wrote: »

Most haunting’s are associated with traumatic events, often surrounding the loss of a life and typically occur in old buildings (e.g. castles, etc.) which used a high percentage of natural stone in their construction. Such stone often has significant levels of iron and quartz in their composition.

I wouldnt say that's really true. especially the 'old buildings' bit. what you describe is typically what people believe though.

Dave!

maccored wrote: »

personally, i dont believe anyone should have to prove anything. you either believe them or you dont, full stop. people who believe they have experienced a ghost usually arent that interested in convincing someone who never has. its generally the other way around - the person who never had such an experience usually claims it cant happen (as it never happened to them) and therefore demand the other 'proves' their experience. pretty stupid and shortsighted if you ask me.

Hence why paranormal stuff is relegated to fringe echo chambers where everyone tells each other stories and gives each other a fright, and isn't taken seriously by mainstream scientists.

Scientists like to present evidence and argue for the validity of their conclusions with other qualified people. That's how our knowledge of the universe gets advanced.

If others took your "I don't think anyone should have to prove anything" philosophy seriously, then we'd probably be living in caves at the moment. Thankfully there are people out there who make the effort to back up their claims.

If you are happy enough to have your outlandish beliefs that you and your pals can talk about, but everyone outside your circle is too cynical or has standards of evidence that are too high to appreciate, then knock yourself out.

ShowMeTheCash

I guess it really depends on you're definition to what a ghost is?
In order to gauge something to be super-natural you must first understand the natural.

I have a number of friends, actually more so older people I know who have claimed to have seen ghosts, heard ghosts or have had some kind of what they claim to be a super-natural experience.

I think people simply deem something super-natural when they themselves cannot explain it, then usually with a little imagination the story becomes more fantastical.

Infra-sound is a natural phenomenon which can cause unusual experiences, this would explain a number of events, but of course not all.
We have the individual, the experience and the environment.
Infra-sounds shows that something environmental can have an effect on the individual.

In many cases you then have to look at the individual, do they suffer from any mental disorders? anything that can cause unusual feelings? anything that can cause strange sensations or even hallucination? or something as simple as being over tired or even over stimulated?

There is an experience known as "the hag" which people all over the world have experienced. The experience usually is something that happens when the individual is in bed or laying down, the experience can include seeing ghostly apparitions and a feeling of being held.

In short the explanation is quite simple:
The brain operates differently when awake to when sleeping, when we sleep a chemical in the body is release to paralyse or disconnect the thoughts / dreams to the rest of the body. However the chemical sometimes is not released properly when we sleep, this is why sometimes as we dream we jump in our sleep usually waking us up completely.
The opposite can also happen when we wake and have the sensation of not being able to move, commonly known as sleep paralysis.

When we are tried the brain can take little nano sleeps, during this time it is almost like sleeping and being awake at the same time, where dreams can almost manifest when being partially awake.
This has explained a lot of so called ghostly apparitions more so the ones involving family members or people we actually know.

Usually people who claim to have seen ghosts are people who want to see ghosts. Seeing a ghost is no different than saying you have just seen flying aliens by claiming you just saw a UFO!

the culture of deference

Little Acorn wrote: »

Please don't ask me to explain these in great scientific detail, because I won't be able to, but I have heard a few other theories aswell.

Just so you know where I stand, I do believe in ghosts.

I don't know the reasons of why they are there, but I do believe they exist.

I have never seen a ghost,

So you dont know but you choose to believe anyway ???

the culture of deference

the culture of deference wrote: »

So you dont know but you choose to believe anyway ???

But surely you don't know either?

It kind of has to come down to what you believe on the basis of what you think. Some people think that the absence of proof is enough for them to say they don't believe, and some people think that the absence of proof leaves them open to believe. I don't believe in ghosts myself, but if someone I know believed in them I wouldn't take it upon myself to "educate" them otherwise.

Little Acorn

the culture of deference wrote: »

So you dont know but you choose to believe anyway ???

Yes I believe that people have experienced seeing things that could be described as ghosts, or have had what could be called ghostly experiences.
Ghosts are just the only word I know to explain these things, I do believe there is probably scientific explanation for sightings, or in my case movement of heavy furniture, but so far science just hasn't found an explanation or answer for these things yet.
A lot of things can and have been given rational explanations, but some things still haven't, and explanations for them have yet to be discovered.
I tried to give a few examples of theories I have heard before, but I would not have much knowledge of these theories as I study biomedical science and only physics 101.
Someone with perhaps more knowledge of physics, or time or energy or parallel universe theories etc. might be able to offer better explanations for those theories.

dlorde

A problem with paranormal or supernatural claims regarding ghosts and the like - as popularly represented - (i.e. independent entities, or some kind of playback of recorded events) is that not only is there no good, objective evidence for them, such as measurable or consistently repeatable phenomena, but that there are no plausible mechanisms for them. The majority of non-scientific explanations/descriptions I've heard would involve totally new and unknown physics, and in particular, physics contrary to the laws of thermodynamics, etc. If physics didn't work the way we know it does, our modern world wouldn't be possible - this puts obvious constraints on the kind of explanation that is possible.

On the other hand, we have become increasingly aware in recent years that the reality we believe we see around us is mostly an internal mental construct generated from expectation and prediction - we are notoriously unreliable observers, and even worse recallers. Not only do we see what we expect to see, but we are primed to see patterns, particularly human bodies and faces, in the world around us, and we have a strong tendency to anthropomorphise unfamiliar or unpredictable events. We become anxious in new or unfamiliar situations, and when we become anxious, the tendencies to see patterns and anthropomorphise are exaggerated - they are survival strategies, and also become stronger when we're tired (and therefore more vulnerable). Darkness or half-light with its visual uncertainty, ancient or creaky structures, and 'spooky' storytelling, all increase these tendencies through the interaction of imagination and anxiety. Infrasound is also known be disturbing and to increase anxiety (hence the use of ultra-low bass to enhance the effect of films & video games).

Many 'haunted' houses, castles, caves, battlefields, etc., are known because notoriety, such as associations with extreme violence or grim events, attracts visitors, and a haunting adds to the cachet - and the expectations of the visitors.

Little wonder that people see 'ghosts'! It would be more surprising if they didn't...

Sitric

Carbon monoxide poisoning probably explains quite a few "sightings". Check your ventilation!

Antikythera

partyndbs wrote: »

i dont really believe in ghosts much but i want 2 no what the **** called me and my sister from our mum and dads room when we were younger...i wouldnt mind if it was just me who remembers it but so does my sister...like omg that fear i experienced when i heard that voice will stick with me for ever.....calling out our names :eek: omg

wWooOO0owooOO

maccored

Dave! wrote: »

If you are happy enough to have your outlandish beliefs that you and your pals can talk about, but everyone outside your circle is too cynical or has standards of evidence that are too high to appreciate, then knock yourself out.

If you are happy to believe you know it all, and dont mind overly generalising, stereotyping and looking on down on those who have a differing opinion than you, then knock yourself out.

Dave!

Bumps a 9 month old thread only to contribute nothing whatsoever...

I have no problem with differing opinions as long as they're backed up by evidence and logic

I'm not into the "live and let live" philosophy that you're promoting, where every opinion is equally valid and everyone has to be taken seriously even if they don't back up their claims in any way

Capt'n Midnight

Can we please get back on topic.

It's a science forum though so more with stuff that can be measured or demonstrated or interesting thought experiments or how would ghosts etc. interact with the corporeal world in a manner that hasn't been detectable by mainstream science

stuff like

Infrasound , microwaves causing auditary sensation in your head, how do huumans humans sense humidity changes or whatever relative to instruments ?

correlations between ghost sightings and rural electrification, stuff like deja vu , nocturnal animals , frequency of ghost sightings in places like Hiroshima or after famines

maccored

Dave,. Im not really too worried what you have problems with. I 'bumped' a 9 month old thread as I only just caught your statement. It needed correcting. Personally, I'd love to see you back up your own cynical claims. Where for example, is your information that backs up completely the idea that the paranormal is rubbish?

Surely you have researched that and can back up your claim with evidence and logic?

What, you can't? Well - I never.

Dave! wrote: »

Bumps a 9 month old thread only to contribute nothing whatsoever...

I have no problem with differing opinions as long as they're backed up by evidence and logic

I'm not into the "live and let live" philosophy that you're promoting, where every opinion is equally valid and everyone has to be taken seriously even if they don't back up their claims in any way

maccored

Infrasound has been proven to replicate some paranormal experiences, and some claim high levels of EMF can do the same. Afaik, ghost sightings aren't very common ... I would certainly be of the opinion that a very very high percentage of reported paranormal claims arent paranormal at all.

I think this comes down to who is doing the work? There are people out there researching these kinds of claims, who would tell you they have come across less explainable 'paranormal' cases. Then there are those who dont research at all, but see themselves as some sort of all knowing paranormal expert (Hi Dave!). Personally in my mind, if a person isnt out there looking, then I dont really take too much notice of their opinion.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Can we please get back on topic.

It's a science forum though so more with stuff that can be measured or demonstrated or interesting thought experiments or how would ghosts etc. interact with the corporeal world in a manner that hasn't been detectable by mainstream science

stuff like

Infrasound , microwaves causing auditary sensation in your head, how do huumans humans sense humidity changes or whatever relative to instruments ?

correlations between ghost sightings and rural electrification, stuff like deja vu , nocturnal animals , frequency of ghost sightings in places like Hiroshima or after famines

Dave!

maccored wrote: »

Dave,. Im not really too worried what you have problems with. I 'bumped' a 9 month old thread as I only just caught your statement. It needed correcting. Personally, I'd love to see you back up your own cynical claims. Where for example, is your information that backs up completely the idea that the paranormal is rubbish?

Surely you have researched that and can back up your claim with evidence and logic?

What, you can't? Well - I never.

Prove a negative? How do I go about doing that?

Prove to me that there isn't a giant invisible pink unicorn flying in the sky above the Liffey.

Capt'n Midnight

Final reminder to all attack the post but not the poster


talk about the science / evidence and provide links

happyman81

Why is being a 'ghost' almost the exclusive domain of former living humans? Why no ghost trees? Ghost dinosaurs? Has this something to do with the notion of a 'soul'?

djpbarry

happyman81 wrote: »

Why is being a 'ghost' almost the exclusive domain of former living humans? Why no ghost trees? Ghost dinosaurs? Has this something to do with the notion of a 'soul'?

People don't like the idea that death means the end - ideas such as spirits and ghosts tie in with the notion of an afterlife, in my opinion.

Gurgle

djpbarry wrote: »

People don't like the idea that death means the end - ideas such as spirits and ghosts tie in with the notion of an afterlife, in my opinion.

Yeah, ghosts are more a question of psychology than science.

Your brain is extremely good at making stuff up to fill in a partial image / unexplained sound.

maccored

Dave! wrote: »

Prove a negative? How do I go about doing that?

Prove to me that there isn't a giant invisible pink unicorn flying in the sky above the Liffey.

I dont understand this line of thinking.

If to you its proving a negative, then you obviously have a belief in the fact the paranormal is all totally explainable right now.

To me, its researching reasons why these things apparently happen ... no matter if it ends up being completely natural, something natural we werent aware about or whatever.

People dont report seeing invisible pink unicorns flying in the sky above the liffy ... but if enough people did (if they could detect invisible things that is) ... then Im sure someone would try and figure it out. I dont understand why you would ask someone prove such a thing to you though.

Still - Im sure science would be in a brilliant state if all its researchers decided they wouldnt research anything, since they already had all the answers.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

personally, i dont believe anyone should have to prove anything. you either believe them or you dont, full stop. people who believe they have experienced a ghost usually arent that interested in convincing someone who never has. its generally the other way around - the person who never had such an experience usually claims it cant happen (as it never happened to them) and therefore demand the other 'proves' their experience. pretty stupid and shortsighted if you ask me.

It is nothing to do with demanding the person proves to you that they saw a ghost. It is about motivating the person to think critically about their beliefs, why they think what they think. Saying you either believe or you don't is nonsense, people believe various things for various reasons, reasons that can be examined and analysed, if only by the person themselves.

Zombrex

happyman81 wrote: »

Why is being a 'ghost' almost the exclusive domain of former living humans? Why no ghost trees? Ghost dinosaurs? Has this something to do with the notion of a 'soul'?

It has to do with the human mental ability known as "theory of mind" that we evolved to help our survival.

This is not a scientific theory of how the mind works, it is the name given to the human ability to mentally conceptualize the mind of another person, allowing humans to think about people, what actions they might take, what they are thinking etc even without them being present. This allows us to plan future actions based on what we think others will do. It is a trait of humans (possibly other primates) that sets us apart from a lot of other animals who seem to not conceptualize when other animals are not around (ie they aren't thinking I wonder what Harry the Fox is doing right now even though I can't see him).

A by product of this ability is that we tend to think of the mind of a person (or just the 'person') as something individual from the physical body. Again this allows us to think about people we cannot actually see. The issue comes when that person dies. We continue to think of their mind as something distinct from their body, so when we see the body die we do not imagine as well that the mind has died. We continue to think of the mind as separate. We do this mostly with other humans, much rarer with animals and almost never with plants. The closer we associate an animal with human like behavior (ie your dog loves you) the more likely we are to do it with that animal. (doggy heaven, never ant heaven).

This leads to the development of notions such as an after life and ghosts, as the human mind has a hard time not thinking that a person still exists even if their body has died.

maccored

motivating people to think critically about their beliefs? And the person doing the motivating has some kind of better knowledge of the subject of something? I really doubt that to be honest (going from the people Ive debated this subject with). Outside of that you're just reiterating the argument Im already putting forward - ie it doesnt matter who 'believes' what.

Heres a site to check out - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/ ... covers a good few of the arguments put forward by those who mistakenly call themselves 'skeptics (even Daves Invisible Pink Unicorn - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm).

Zombrex wrote: »

It is nothing to do with demanding the person proves to you that they saw a ghost. It is about motivating the person to think critically about their beliefs, why they think what they think. Saying you either believe or you don't is nonsense, people believe various things for various reasons, reasons that can be examined and analysed, if only by the person themselves.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

talk about the science / evidence and provide links

maccored wrote: »

Outside of that you're just reiterating the argument Im already putting forward - ie it doesnt matter who 'believes' what.

You are going to have to explain how you got that out of the post ?

Heres a site to check out - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/ ... covers a good few of the arguments put forward by those who mistakenly call themselves 'skeptics (even Daves Invisible Pink Unicorn - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm).

This is a Science forum, evidence and refutable theories are good , links to peer reviewed articles in reputable journals are good, stuff you find on google scholar is possibly OK

Links to sites that prominently feature 9/11 conspiracy theories are not so good

A comment on the scientific method
"If I were wrong, it would only have taken one." --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

maccored

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You are going to have to explain how you got that out of the post ?

My sincere apologies ... I had assume that when I opened the original post with "personally, i dont believe anyone should have to prove anything .." that you could make the link between not having to prove anything, because it doesnt matter what anyone 'believes' in. Hope that explains it for you.

This is a Science forum, evidence and refutable theories are good , links to peer reviewed articles in reputable journals are good, stuff you find on google scholar is possibly OK

Links to sites that prominently feature 9/11 conspiracy theories are not so good

A comment on the scientific method
"If I were wrong, it would only have taken one." --Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

I completely accept that. I dont care though, if they link to conspiracies ... their points on flying pink whatevers and the general outlook of those who dont know the difference between skeptical and cynical still have value.

Still .. its a bit dodgy to be covering this at all in this forum if your reply is to be more scientific. Paranormal research is no kind of science.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

Outside of that you're just reiterating the argument Im already putting forward - ie it doesnt matter who 'believes' what.

The argument isn't to do with what you believe, rather why you believe it.

maccored wrote: »

Heres a site to check out - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/ ... covers a good few of the arguments put forward by those who mistakenly call themselves 'skeptics (even Daves Invisible Pink Unicorn - http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page4.htm).

I only read "Page4", but those are not good arguments. The central one on the page about the Pink Unicorn seems to be that the skeptics know the unicorn is a fiction made up by them yet believers in ghosts or UFO's don't, they believe they are real. Not only does that demonstrate that the person doesn't understand the point of the Unicorn analogy, but they also don't understand that it doesn't make any difference, the argument is about what you can demonstrate not what you believe is real. In fact it is purposely not about what you believe is real, that is the point.

A very poor argument, I really hope the rest of the website is a bit better.

maccored

im continuing this on the paranormal forum .... a science forum is no place for such a debate.

I will say though ... stop focusing on the other things that site says, and instead give me your views on their views of pseudo-skeptics. Personally, I believe they are spot on.

IRWolfie-

maccored wrote: »

im continuing this on the paranormal forum .... a science forum is no place for such a debate.

I will say though ... stop focusing on the other things that site says, and instead give me your views on their views of pseudo-skeptics. Personally, I believe they are spot on.

A science forum isn't the place to discuss reported phenomena in the natural world? That is news to me. Falsifiable claims are the domain of Science, even if the reasoning behind the claim isn't scientific.

The largest issue with ghost sittings, alien abductions etc is the unreliability of eye witnesses. Sure they will be convinced of what they saw, but studies have shown that eyewitnesses are highly unreliable about what they think they have seen and are easily misled. There are specific explanations for many "paranormal" events, but the reasons are particular to each case, for example sleep paralysis as leading to beliefs around the incubus.

See some of the work by, for example, the anomalistic psychologist Chris French about the (Psychological) causes of many of these paranormal claims and his tests etc.

Paranormal claims have never been demonstrable in any case ever, even though there are some extremely good offers of money if it can be demonstrated (i.e the $1 million dollar James Randi challenge). Note that people have tried the challenge many times and always failed.

Also, your use of the word "proved" earlier indicates a lack of basic scientific understanding. Science does not deal with proofs, that is the realm of mathematics, we deal with evidence.

You say that your version of Paranormal research is not scientific but some paranormal groups claim to be scientific. Which is it?

Masteroid

Many years ago I awoke in my bed and was horrified to have the sensation that a great weight was upon me, pinning me, on my back, to the bed. I then proceeded to have a dream sequence in which I was evacuating my wife and two children from the house due to some spooky entity.

Throughout this sequence, I believed myself to be awake but after a 'shock' that occurred in the dream at a point where I thought we were safe, I found myself back in bed and experiencing that sensation of being pinned down again.

An identical sequence to the first then occurred right up to the point where someone spoke to me. He said, "I didn't expect to see you again" which was different to what he'd said in the first sequence and I took it as a reference to what happend at the end of that.

But at the same time, I realised that I was still dreaming and I woke up with all my hairs standing on end and totally freaked but this time, I did not have that sensation of being pinned down and this time, when I urged my wife to turn on the lamp, it came on.

I felt instinctively compelled to go and check the security of the house so I went downstairs, all the time feeling 'spooked', as if I was covered in static electricity, and when I entered the living room, I noticed that the red light that illuminated the fake coal in our electric fire was flickering, I could smell burning plastic and I could hear electricity arcing within the faulty switch that provided power to the light.

I unplugged the appliance, the partially melted plastic housing of the switch hardened and I went back to bed. And I felt confused about what had just happened.

Now, I am convinced that my dream and my response to that dream could possibly have saved the lives of my entire family but even in those days, I was a skeptic and I found myself lying there in bed wondering, 'Had a ghost just saved my life?'

I know that there is a connection between my dream and the arcing faulty switch but I don't believe in ghosts even though at that point, a ghost seemed like the most reasonable explanation. Why did I wake up?

So I was laid there contemplating events and I realised that the appliance was situated directly below our head-board and moreover, the back of my head was almost directly above the location of the failing switch. I started to wonder if electromagnetic energy emanating from the site of the arc could have effected my temporal lobe, creating a disturbance that would be indicative of danger at a subconscious level. This caused me to have a dream about a ghost that caused me, in the dream, to evacuate the house as if there was a fire. My subconscious even identified where the danger was at. Wierd huh? But amazing.

I think that ghosts demonstrate the power of the mind and therefore have scientific validity but that does not mean that ghosts have to exist in order to be studied.

Supernatural experiences usually illicit extreme reactions. They make most people run. Sure there are those who feel comforted while communing with a long-dead loved-one but this can be thought of as an extreme mental response that cannot be shared by others and nor can such entities be detected by any equipment other than the bereaved observer's mind.

I would say that the human ability to have supernatural experiences is simply an artifact of the brain mechanisms which allow us to detect low-frequency energy and electromagnetic energy in order to alert us to processes that are occurring in the natural world that are dangerous to humans.

Funny thing is though, if I did perchance encounter a ghost then I would rationalise that I was having a hallucination of some kind. I have experienced such hallucinations through sleep deprivation but I knew that that big dog wasn't really pouncing on me, it wasn't even there.

But as far as people who see ghosts are concerned, in order to actually 'see' a ghost then actual photons have to bounce of an actual object in order to be detected by the human eye. And if ghosts are opaque to photons then they can been detected by cameras.

Anything that appears in the field of view not as a result of reflected or emitted photons is the product of an individual imagination due to a somewhat afflicted mind.

Finally, I think that people who hold and purport opinions that tend to mislead or remove power from others should be challenged at every opportunity. We should examine our beliefs and challenge them and each others'. Opinions that are based on faulty premises are usually faulty. If we are to improve ourselves then we have to realise that it is not okay to hold certain opinions where such an opinion can denegrade the development of any other human.

IRWolfie-

Masteroid wrote: »

Many years ago I awoke in my bed and was horrified to have the sensation that a great weight was upon me, pinning me, on my back, to the bed. I then proceeded to have a dream sequence in which I was evacuating my wife and two children from the house due to some spooky entity.

It's called sleep paralysis. It's a real condition which can include hallucinations. Check it up. The rest is just coincidence

djpbarry

Masteroid wrote: »

Why did I wake up?

Because you could smell something burning?

Masteroid

IRWolfie- wrote: »

It's called sleep paralysis. It's a real condition which can include hallucinations. Check it up. The rest is just coincidence

That's right, sleep paralysis is what stopped us from falling out of trees when having vivid dreams of running etc.

Masteroid

djpbarry wrote: »

Because you could smell something burning?

I didn't smell anything burning until I went downstairs and opened the living-room door. If I'd woken up to the smell of burning then I would have understood why I woke up as soon as I had awoken.

I think that the electromagnetic radiation generated by the arcing contacts of the switch registered as an anomaly in my subconcious. I had slept in that same position in the same bed many many times before this and perhaps my brain had become used to a certain level of background noise, if you will, and the EMR probably raised the level of that noise to an unsettling level. And then instinct kicked in.

Don't get me wrong, if it turned out that sleep causes hypersensitive smell then I would concede that maybe I did smell something while asleep that I couldn't detect when awake.

But as I understand it, EMR can have an effect on the temporal lobe and can cause feelings of 'spookedness' that are easy to put down to supernatural phenomena.

djpbarry

Masteroid wrote: »

I didn't smell anything burning until I went downstairs and opened the living-room door.
...
I think that the electromagnetic radiation generated by the arcing contacts of the switch registered as an anomaly in my subconcious.

I'm highly sceptical that such a small electrical discharge could influence a person in such a manner. On the other hand, burning electrical circuitry produces a very potent smell and seems like the most probably cause of your waking.

Or, even more probable, it was all just a coincidence.

John mac

If there were ghosts why are we not swamped with ghosts of dinosaurs, cows sheep and other anmials?

now there's a question for Wayne.

IRWolfie-

Masteroid wrote: »

I think that the electromagnetic radiation generated by the arcing contacts of the switch registered as an anomaly in my subconcious. I had slept in that same position in the same bed many many times before this and perhaps my brain had become used to a certain level of background noise, if you will, and the EMR probably raised the level of that noise to an unsettling level. And then instinct kicked in.

You think that's a lot more likely than you having faintly smelled it, or it being a coincidence (i.e confirmation bias, sleep paralysis is not uncommon, and most of those people don't have a house burning down so they don't attribute it to being a miracle).

The simple explanations are more reasonable. Your explanation relies on a rather tenuous and very hypothetical idea that you have no real reason to believe is true. The electromagnetic radiation from a toaster is going to be near minimal, it reaching your room is also rather minimal and will fall off with an inverse square law. Now contrast that with the wireless in your house, and the phone network, these are going to be operating at a much higher intensity and will wash out any possible effect. Then you need to look at neuroscience or similar, and see if humans can even possibly detect the particular emitted frequencies and be awoken (which is highly doubtful).

(I see djpbarry has already made this point)

spankmaster2000

I have no intention whatsoever of being sexist or mysogonist or disrepectful or whatever, but any time the conversation about ghosts, etc comes up; it's more often than not, a swing in favour of belief by the girls in the group. (not necessarily the same girls each time!)

I suppose I'm also thinking that a lot of psychics, etc are female, and many "mind, body, spirit" magazines / books etc, appear to be focused on females.

Again, I don't mean this in any way as a direct stereotyping or anything, but, in my experience, on average, more women tend to believe in ghosts than men.
Has anyone else noticed this? Maybe there are some figures out there which completely prove me wrong! (And if so, why??)

spankmaster2000

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500160_162-994766.html

Women are more likely to say they believe in ghosts than are men: 56 percent of women believe, while 38 percent of men do. More than half of younger Americans aged 18 to 45 believe in ghosts; those over 45 are less likely.

So, not just girls, but mostly younger girls?

I'm not trying to make a point or anything, but I'm just wondering why this is. What do you think?